Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T16:54:04.797Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Development of new quantitative physiological and molecular breeding parameters based on the sugar-beet vernalization intensity model

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 July 2012

T. CHIURUGWI ,
H. F. HOLMES ,
A. QI ,
T. Y. P. CHIA ,
P. HEDDEN  and
E. S. MUTASA-GÖTTGENS
T. CHIURUGWI
Affiliation:
Rothamsted Research Broom's Barn, Higham, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk IP28 6NP, UK
H. F. HOLMES
Affiliation:
Rothamsted Research Broom's Barn, Higham, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk IP28 6NP, UK
A. QI
Affiliation:
Rothamsted Research Broom's Barn, Higham, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk IP28 6NP, UK
T. Y. P. CHIA
Affiliation:
Rothamsted Research Broom's Barn, Higham, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk IP28 6NP, UK
P. HEDDEN
Affiliation:
Rothamsted Research, Harpenden, Hertfordshire, AL5 2JQ, UK
E. S. MUTASA-GÖTTGENS*
Affiliation:
Rothamsted Research Broom's Barn, Higham, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk IP28 6NP, UK
*
*To whom all correspondence should be addressed. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Sugar-beet crops, Beta vulgaris spp. vulgaris (L), suffer from premature bolting and flowering as a consequence of prolonged exposure to cold conditions (vernalization). This reduces crop yield and quality and could be avoided if bolting-resistant varieties were available. Traditionally, development of bolting-resistant varieties has relied on selection against the annual growth habit associated with the bolting gene B. However, this has failed to deliver crops that can be reliably sown in early spring or grown over winter without the risk of bolting. New breeding targets and selection strategies are required and have become tractable with the recent development of the vernalization-intensity model. This model uses parameters for the intensity and duration of vernalization (vernalization hours) to predict bolting responses and discriminates between varieties by the minimum number of vernalization hours needed to induce bolting (vernalization requirement (VR)) and by the increase in bolting incidence for each extra vernalizing hour once the VR has been satisfied (bolting sensitivity (BS)). Since the vernalization-intensity model was developed from variety-assessment trials data, the present work sought to refine and test it through controlled environment (CE) experiments in which seven sugar-beet varieties were exposed to differing levels of accurately defined vernalization treatments and scored for bolting rates to determine their VR and BS values. The results confirmed and improved the model and showed that VR, not BS, has more potential for developing bolting resistant varieties. It was also observed that there exist in current varieties, the genetic potential to breed for higher VR. Further experiments assessed the correlation of attainment of VR with changes in gene expression and shoot apical meristem (SAM) morphology to identify potential markers for this trait. It was found that the time when VR is attained correlates with up-regulation of gibberellin biosynthetic genes and floral transcription factors in leaf and shoot apices; most prominently, GIBBERELLIN 20-OXIDASE 2 (BvGA20ox2) and FLOWERING LOCUS T 2 (BvFT2). To integrate the results with weather data, temperature records for the past 47 years from the Broom's Barn weather station were used to develop a tool for predicting accumulated vernalization hours based on sowing date. The results, together with data from the CE experiments, were used to establish VR-breeding targets for bolting-resistant varieties for spring- and autumn-sown sugar-beet crops. The present paper shows that integration of weather, VR and genetic data provide useful tools to aid both cultivation and breeding selection. For growers, it provides a weather data tool to assist with the selection of suitable sowing dates. For breeders, it provides the first identification of molecular genetic factors that correlate with VR and the physiological changes associated with vernalization responses in sugar beet. The results suggest that gene-expression profiles can be developed into tools for quantifying bolting resistance in beet, thereby providing a cost-effective, high-throughput and simple method for breeders to apply the vernalization-intensity model.

Type
Crops and Soils Research Papers
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 151 , Issue 4 , August 2013 , pp. 492 - 505
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Chia, T. Y. P., Mueller, A., Jung, C. & Mutasa-Göttgens, E. S. (2008). Sugar beet contains a large CONSTANS-LIKE gene family including a CO homologue that is independent of the early-bolting (B) gene locus. Journal of Experimental Botany 59, 2735–2748.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Debenham, G. B. (1999). Bolting and flowering mechanisms in sugar beet, Beta vulgaris, ssp vulgaris (L). Ph.D. Thesis, University of Nottingham, UK.Google Scholar
Durrant, M. J., Mash, S. J. & Jaggard, K. W. (1993). Effects of seed advancement and sowing date on establishment, bolting and yield of sugarbeet. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 121, 333–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, C. M. & Kluge-Severin, S. (2010). Light absorption and radiation use efficiency of autumn and spring sown sugar beets. Field Crops Research 119, 238–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaggard, K. W., Qi, A. & Armstrong, M. J. (2009 a). A meta-analysis of sugarbeet yield responses to nitrogen fertilizer measured in England since 1980. The Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 147, 287–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaggard, K. W., Qi, A. & Ober, E. S. (2009 b). Capture and use of solar radiation, water and nitrogen by sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.). Journal of Experimental Botany 60, 1919–1925.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jaggard, K. W., Qi, A. & Semenov, M. A. (2007). The impact of climate change on sugarbeet yield in the UK: 1976–2004. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 145, 367–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaggard, K. W. & Werker, A. R. (1999). An evaluation of the potential benefits and costs of autumn-sown sugarbeet in NW Europe. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 132, 91–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaggard, K. W., Wickens, R., Webb, D. J. & Scott, R. K. (1983). Effects of sowing date on plant establishment and bolting and the influence of these factors on yields of sugar-beet. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 101, 147–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jung, C. & Mueller, A. E. (2009). Flowering time control and applications in plant breeding. Trends in Plant Science 14, 563–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewellen, R. T. (1989). Registration of cytoplasmic male sterile sugarbeet germplasm C600 CMS. Crop Science 29, 246–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milford, G. F. J. (2007). Plant structure and crop physiology. In Sugar Beet (Ed. Draycott, A. P.), pp. 30–49. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
Milford, G. F. J., Jarvis, P. J., Jones, J. & Barraclough, P. B. (2008). An agronomic and physiological re-evaluation of the potassium and sodium requirements and fertilizer recommendations for sugar beet. The Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 146, 429–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milford, G. F. J., Jarvis, P. J. & Walters, C. (2010). A vernalization-intensity model to predict bolting in sugar beet. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 148, 127–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mutasa-Göttgens, E., Qi, A., Mathews, A., Thomas, S., Phillips, A. & Hedden, P. (2009). Modification of gibberellin signalling (metabolism & signal transduction) in sugar beet: analysis of potential targets for crop improvement. Transgenic Research 18, 301–308.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mutasa-Göttgens, E. S., Qi, A., Zhang, W., Schulze-Buxloh, G., Jennings, A., Hohmann, U., Muller, A. E. & Hedden, P. (2010). Bolting and flowering control in sugar beet: relationships and effects of gibberellin, the bolting gene B and vernalization. AoB Plants 2010, plq12. doi: 10.1093/aobpla/plq012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pin, P. A., Benlloch, R., Bonnet, D., Wremerth-Weich, E., Kraft, T., Gielen, J. J. & Nilsson, O. (2010). An antagonistic pair of FT homologs mediates the control of flowering time in sugar beet. Science 330, 1397–1400.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reeves, P. A., He, Y., Schmitz, R. J., Amasino, R. M., Panella, L. W. & Richards, C. M. (2007). Evolutionary conservation of the FLOWERING LOCUS C-mediated vernalization response: evidence from the sugar beet (Beta vulgaris). Genetics 176, 295–307.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sadeghian, S. Y., Johansson, E. & Lexander, K. (1993). A genetic analysis of the number of cells, length of cell, and gibberellic acid sensitivity in sugar beet and their relation to bolting mechanism. Euphytica 68, 59–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smit, A. L. (1983). Influence of external factors on growth and development of sugar-beet (Beta vulgaris L.). Agricultural Research Report 914. Wageningen: Pudoc.Google Scholar
Stout, M. & Owen, F. V. (1958). Effect of gibberellic acid on rate of bolting of annual beets. Journal of Sugar Beet Research 10, 302–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Dijk, H. (2009). Evolutionary change in flowering phenology in the iteroparous herb Beta vulgaris ssp. maritima: a search for the underlying mechanisms. Journal of Experimental Botany 60, 3143–3155.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vandesompele, J., De Preter, K., Pattyn, F., Poppe, B., Van Roy, N., De Paepe, A. & Speleman, F. (2002). Accurate normalization of real-time quantitative RT-PCR data by geometric averaging of multiple internal control genes. Genome Biology 3, research0034.0001–0011. doi:10.1186/gb-2002-3-7-research0034CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed